I see that we're operating on different definitions of the word "Libertarian"--
As I pointed out earlier it means many different things in different contexts. I was referring to the American Libertarian Party, which apparently you neither support nor approve of. It's extremely misleading, though, for you to continue referring to yourself in this way when the obvious connotation is that you support the American LP.
I could go back through American history and pick some old and now totally defunct definition of "Republican", but I shouldn't be surprised when people take this to mean that I support the modern Republican party. If you don't support the biggest and most significant group in this country referring to itself as "Libertarian" today, you need to specify that you support a different form of libertarianism. What do you expect people to assume?
In any event, politics is all about compromise and your approach on all of it seems to be "Pick some principles and then never, ever accept anything less than 100% compliance from everyone else" and this doesn't really work in the real world. Virtually nothing is black and white, and you don't reach political goals by whining up a storm any time the slightest little bit of your political philosophy is violated by government. If you're never ever willing to give an inch, you're not going to magically get a foot back in return. You assume this idealistic utopia of perfect inalienable rights is the ONLY acceptable form of government and it puts you really, really out of touch with reality.
This "ALL or NOTHING!" attitude toward politics is really not going to get you very far in terms of recruiting more people to the cause or actually getting any legislative changes passed. It makes your opponents totally unwilling to compromise with you, which is the basis of politics. I'd grow up and get over the black and white die hard idealism if I were you, and pronto. Real life requires compromises with opposing ideologies to get anything done.